Forum:Blueprints and Scripts
This night, external links to pages providing "blueprints" were added to several starship and starship class articles. I don't have the time to check them all, but I am not sure we even want to have these links. The blueprints themselves are definitely non-canon, and publishing them on the web might even be a copyright violation. As far as I see, all links were added by either or . Any thoughts? - if none, I will remove the links later, when I find the time... -- Cid Highwind 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :Given that these are existing web resources that are of interest to some, and not being moved into MA, how's about moving the links to an External Link section in each article. That way rather than the implication that they are "right" we will just be pointing to things of note on the web. I agree that these may violate copyright, but the other site has obtained some permissions in some instances I believe. Regardless, our link does not implicate us in the violation - it just might go dead someday if the copyright holder gets upset at the other site. So I'd keep the links, but move them to an appropriate section. (But if they end up being deleted I'm not going to lose sleep over it!) Aholland 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) In Germany, there have been recent court decisions basically stating that a web site owner can, under specific circumstances, be made responsible for illegal content of external pages he directly links to. I have no idea if the same is true for other jurisdictions, but I thought "better safe than sorry" since the content on those pages has only restricted value for MA anyway... -- Cid Highwind 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC) ::On a similar sidenote, User:Bp has added some external script links to some of the DS9 episodes recently, including and . What is the MA policy for these? Is it the same as the blueprints, or something difference? Is it covered in one of the policies somewhere? I couldn't find anything obvious in my looking. -- Sulfur 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :I don't think MA has a policy on how to link or what not to link to. For what it is worth, this is probably not a problem in the U.S. ("A service provider shall not be liable . . . for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material . . . ." Title 17 U.S.C.) A couple of cases have addressed it a little differently, but they involved confidential information and commercial gain by the linking site. I cannot speak to Germany, though, or its reach into MA. Aholland 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :::I had seen a link in to the episode script. I find it interesting to read the scripts while I watch, so I added the links to those episodes that were on today. I don't think its a problem at all, I doubt that site cares, its making ad money, and it isn't illegal. All the episodes should have an external link to that site, it's great. IMO. --Bp 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :A bunch of links to external sites with blueprints have been added again. Is this permitted behavior for MA, or should they be removed? I don't think the above discussion was clear on that point. Aholland 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ::::All of these are fan-made. Over the past few weeks, it appears someone from this site has been trying to advertise by inserting links into MA. They should all be removed. See . Jaz talk 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) :::::So your saying scripts arn't canon and blueprints aren't precise? Also the books aren't canon and there here, so why arn't the blueprints? --From [[User:TrekkyStar|'TrekkyStar']][[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Open Hailing Frequencies]] 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, this is what we are saying... or, rather, what we said two years ago, when this discussion was going on. If something like a blueprint was officially published, then we might want to have a article about it, just as we have articles about other reference works. This discussion, however, talk about adding information from the blueprints to the individual in-universe articles - which we don't do. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)